Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Unfortunately named JPEG-XL (Score 1) 17

I read the reasoning (below) for the name on the Wikipedia page, but it still seems unfortunate for something that's suppose to be smaller than regular JPEG. :-)

The name refers to the design committee (JPEG), the X designates the series of its image coding standards published since 2000 (JPEG XT/XR/XS), and L stands for "long-term", highlighting the intent to create a future-proof, long-lived format to succeed JPEG/JFIF.

It's like trying to figure out if the LHC is simply very big (Large Hadron-Collider) or just for smashing big particles (Large-Hadron Collider) - or both. :-)

Comment Re: As they say... (Score 0) 82

"The real problem with modern nuclear is its just expensive and extremely complicated to get running compared with the cheaper energy from solar, wind, etc. But. the Environmental dangers? We solved that issue decades ago."

Who is "we" here? Certainly not a failing country that will absolutely cut every corner.

Comment Re:So fellow wage slaves... I'm curious (Score 1) 108

Sorry but that is the answer, it's what internal CAs are for. If the devices truly do not support automation, and you need certs for them (do you really need them if this is a home or small office network?) then your choice is use public certs and live with the ever-shorter expiration requirements or put up your own CA.

Comment Re:Hear me out on this (Score 1) 24

I expect Mark is right there is no need to stop, just a need to do it right, which Meta/facebook can and for others to be held to account for their failures.

I'm certain that the courts agree he must find a way to pay billions of dollars of damages to our pain and suffering.

Said the frog to the scorpion "cough up the green!"

Comment Re:They aren't the problem (Score 1) 58

Yes. Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6â"3 that law enforcement's use of a Google geofence warrant to acquire a person's historical cellphone location data constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

That was a ruling on a search which required a warrant, and the ruling states that the district court itself found that the warrant was invalid as it violated the suspect's fourth amendment rights. It would seem to apply except that these are warrantless requests. It also specifically references Carpenter v. United States' determination that such a request as in Chatrie is able to look into the past, which makes possible surveillance which was formerly impossible and was therefore unexpected when the relevant laws were written, but the flock requests we're discussing are for recent information. It remains to be seen whether this court would apply the same logic to these similar but different specific uses.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Working...